I honestly don't care whether or not CO2 is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.
There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues. Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question. The future is simple. A clean renewable energy future that does not rely on archaic & dirty fuels to propel us forward. Anyone trying to sell you anything less than that has a hidden agenda... |
|
|
|
At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.
Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words. Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it. I understand global warming pretty well. I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution. I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other . No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically. Go look THAT up, son. I honestly don't care whether or not CO 2 is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P. You should care because its raping you at every turn and stealing your wealth, freedom, and liberty by those with an insidious agenda. You are analyzing this from a conspiracy theorist standpoint. You don't study science with a preconspired agenda. That's not the best practice.. |
|
|
|
The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is 1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors. I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture ->  net effect on clouds 2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands. All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other. At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much. Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words. Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it. I understand global warming pretty well. I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution. I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .  This not rocket science, and any discussion justifying why we should stay on fossil fuels for 1 second longer is idiotic. That's what it gets down to for me.. No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically. Go look THAT up, son. So you really think (based on carbon dating, and past charts) that we are headed for a cooling period? Is this what you people really believe? That we are in a "natural" cycle, and that all of the stuff that we have been building on this planet for 200+ years, that emit tons of green house gasses (not just CO2), are not the major contributing factor to this rapid warming we have been seeing? Why bring Al Gore into this debate? Who mentioned him? Lets keep it simple... |
|
|
|
The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is 1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors. I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds 2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands. All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other. At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much. Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words. Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it. I understand global warming pretty well. I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the start of the industrial revolution. I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other . This not rocket science, and any discussion justifying why we should stay on fossil fuels for 1 second longer is idiotic. That's what it gets down to for me.. |
|
|
|
The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is 1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors. I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds 2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands. All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other. At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much. Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words. |
|
|
|
“However, experts from around the globe pointed out that the cataclysmic chart had no scientific support and was contradicted by all of the most recent satellite images. Now the Scottish map-makers responsible for the disappearance of 115,830 square miles of polar ice have admitted publicly they were wrong.” http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/map_makers_admit_greenland_gaffe_1_2077854Let's see how this mistake could have happened. Who owns the map maker ? In 1980, Readers Digest bought them out, then in 1985 News International bought them, which HarperCollins Publishers bought in 1989, along with Collins Publishers (UK) and Harper & Row (US). Then, in March 2007, Ripplewood Holdings LLC led a consortium of private equity investors who bought the company through a leveraged buy-out. Now, Ripplewood Holdings is a bit of a mystery as most private equity firms, but it's led by Timothy C. Collins, who has a very interesting background. Sits on the board of CitiGroup, and oh looky here, he is on the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderburg Group, was a VP at Lazard Global, and is also a Yale graduate. Skull and Bones, anyone? Yes those old ruling elite and globalists we have to put up with... All fits in quite well with the global warming Agenda 21 biodiversity scam to fake a map to make people think we are losing all of our precious ice caps. Great more ammo for the bone-headed global warming deniers... |
|
|
|
Females will start being more "into" Bitcoin, when they are worth a bit more lol.
Just because they like handbags you want them to hold the bag for you?   |
|
|
|
|
Females will start being more "into" Bitcoin, when they are worth a bit more lol.
|
|
|
|
In the long run that would be the end result yeah. But not simply because of the subject matter, It'd be more of a "he says she says" With CH slapping the MIT lincense on at the Last second and covering his ass You can't just start complying after the fact. If you violate it, you've violated it. You would have a better chance taking RS down for scamming LOL. LET ME NOT GIVE YOU ANY IDEAS... |
|
|
|
BTC payment rate increased.  |
|
|
|
If Luke-Jr and Coinhunter showed up to court to fight this...
They would get laughed out of the building...
For good reasons..
Errr.... courts on TV != courts IRL case DISMISSED LOL! |
|
|
|
Thanks to midnightmagic who directed me to this very helpful video about identifying and then dealing with "poisonous people" in open source software projects: http://youtu.be/ZSFDm3UYkeEAdvice on disinfecting: http://youtu.be/ZSFDm3UYkeE?t=34m22sWatch the whole thing for examples of "poisonous person" behavior, like repeatedly flooding mailing lists/forums with their opinion or comments, not listening to the opinion of others, or making sweeping "the world will end if..." statements about the project. I'll be blunt: I think Luke Dashjr fits the definition of a poisonous person, and I think Bitcoin would be better without him. At the very least, we wouldn't be creating two BIPs for every technical issue, one for Luke and one for the rest of us (see BIP 16/17, and now we have BIP 20/21, too). +1 Gavin, 100% agree with your analysis on Luke-Jr. |
|
|
|
|
If Luke-Jr and Coinhunter showed up to court to fight this...
They would get laughed out of the building...
For good reasons..
|
|
|
|
This could be a revival of SC.If so I'd look forward to it so I can have a go at trading other P2P currencies (SC) as well as BTC as it seems there's a lot more profit for me to be had by trading multiple currencies.I do wish that SC can help me setup shop like BTC did so I can trade between currencies without issue.
Lets see how SCs changes work out in the mid term.
I think a lot of people in the end are going to get shafted and one person is going to walk away with a lot of everyone else's cash. This.. |
|
|
|
|
WALL AT $6 DIMINISHING!!! $7 HERE WE COME?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
